4 ms·

I mean say what you will, but that kind of is the American way since the founding of the republic. Don't trust the sovereign to take care of you, because just

I mean say what you will, but that kind of is the American way since the founding of the republic. Don't trust the sovereign to take care of you, because just sometimes that ends with the cops welding people into apartment buildings Does that mean people should hoard and price gouge their fellow man during a pandemic, of course not.

mindslight 7y ago
I'd call myself a libertarian. I've gone through phases of many different flavors, but ultimately all united by a general belief that people should be free to make choices for themselves, and ultimately know themselves better than a centralized government. Having said that, there is a huge blindspot of this philosophy with regards to public health. So much so, that when public health officials do their job, we can comfortably take them for granted. Wasn't it great when the CDC was simply a "waste of taxpayer money" ? In general we shouldn't blindly trust the government to take care of us. But we all implicitly did anyway, by not already having stockpiled all of these goods far ahead of time. As this has now become acutely apparent, everyone is looking to stock up for themselves aka hoard. We're about to see what happens to Freedom when this centralized response is not performed early enough to nip the problem in the bud. In a month, the national guard is likely to be patrolling to keep order, as the supply of hospital beds severely lags demand.
- thymolu 7y ago
  I'm of the libertarian persuasion too, but I'm really more of what I might refer to as a competitivist, that the government ideally increases competitive exchange of goods services and ideas. Sometimes this means more government services, sometimes less. Regulation is also different from service or resource provision. In a lot of ways, this crisis was worsened by overregulation. The FDA and CDC to some extent contributed to testing shortages by emphasizing centralized micromanaging of test protocol over test availability. It was entirely preventable. Many of the crunches we're seeing are due to rent seeking monopolies restricting provider pools and other red tape, that are entirety self inflicted. You're starting to see glimpses of this problem with things like lifting interstate licensing practice constraints, but it's the tip of the iceberg. US healthcare needs a lot more public support in the form of single payer, etc, but also needs a lot of deregulation. Libertarianism isn't anarchism either. Healthcare is one of those areas where I think public services makes a lot of sense.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    It's true that the government was a net negative here. But in an alternative timeline with the same agencies, international travelers were examined, possibly quarantined, tested, and contact traced when it mattered. The red tape took just as long to get through, but started earlier, such that mass tests were available when community spread was a concern. And there wasn't an official narrative telling everyone to just ignore the problem. I hate to say it, but getting a government that is worse than nothing is the outcome of the "drown it in the bathtub" philosophy. It's a direct result of a lack of belief in institutions. I'm all for cutting government bloat, but it has to be targeted at middle management, corporate welfare and outright citizen-hostile programs (NSA, DEA, TSA, CIA, ATF) rather than kneecapping public services. Yet when politicians get elected on a promise of downsizing, they go after the soft targets rather than actually disrupting the status quo. As for healthcare itself, tomes have been written about that. I think regulating providers to have to charge uniform prices to all payers, at time of service, would go a long way. You don't go to the grocery store and pay at the checkout, only to receive a bill for the cashier's time three months later. Not that this would have solved our current shortage, but it certainly would have made people less scared to seek medical help for possible covid.
- zo1 7y ago
  I personally don't think that Libertarianism (and anarcho-capitalism by extension) have a blindspot when it comes to public health. Right now we're seeing huge efforts in the private sector to mitigate this disaster, that can not be discounted. As simple examples, private entities are giving out sanitizers, increasing hygiene and cleaning policies, putting up posters for awareness, coming up with contact-less procedures for public interaction, hiring people to fix online shopping demand, etc. When people are scared, they act. When a business's continuation is threatened, it will act. My private health-care provider and insurance provider have already extended (without government mandate, direction or legislation or extra-cost) my cover for any corona-related treatment/illness/death. In-case I lose my income due to this, they've also extended my unemployment to cover that so I won't be losing my income if it comes to that. And I can get a private test at my-cost (or healthcare provider will reimburse me) for less than $70. So that just leaves what...Mass coordination of "public" spaces? Again, tragically those spots are both everybody's and nobody's at the same time, essentially paralyzing them from doing anything too drastic without government approval. Not to mention the government is now stepping in and stopping some of these efforts because "human rights". They're planning on commandeering private hospitals and facilities to provide healthcare for free for those that don't pay and to deal with the fact that they were inadequately prepared for this crisis. They've also started with curfews, sent military police to private premises to "count" heads in case they go above some magical government number, prohibited public-dissemination of information by epidemiologists without government-approval.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    > private entities are giving out sanitizers, increasing hygiene and cleaning policies, putting up posters for awareness, coming up with contact-less procedures for public interaction, hiring people to fix online shopping demand You're helping to prove my point. These are all reactive actions that simply attempt to mitigate the problem. I've personally upped my hygiene, policies, and mask / hand sanitizer use as well. This isn't going to actually solve the epidemic, but it will reduce my own exposure now that it's a major problem. Where was the private company temperature-checking international travelers in February, testing, and quarantining or contact tracing as necessary? Proactive prevention requires focus and coordination. A team that is paid to sit around looking for specific threats will take them seriously, while businesses (really all entities, including individuals and the non-specialized parts of government) only respond to the current conditions. Large companies could certainly employ similar risk teams, but don't seem to have done so for the current problem. > deal with the fact that they were inadequately prepared for this crisis The entire medical system, public and "private", is unprepared for the crisis. One could make the argument that if healthcare had been a freer market there would be much increased hospital capacity, but I don't see how this makes sense given businesses tendency to be reactive. Supplies like masks could have been easily stockpiled by companies and sold at a decent profit when needed, but weren't. > They've also started with curfews, sent military police to private premises to "count" heads in case they go above some magical government number, prohibited public-dissemination of information by epidemiologists without government-approval. You'll get no argument from me about these being injustices. But I think the real anti-freedom jackboots are going to come out when people start dying in significant numbers from hospital crowding. Which is kind of my entire larger point - when situations are allowed to get out of hand, restoring forces step in and none of them are conducive to lofty ideals of freedom.

mindslight 7y ago

I'd call myself a libertarian. I've gone through phases of many different flavors, but ultimately all united by a general belief that people should be free to make choices for themselves, and ultimately know themselves better than a centralized government. Having said that, there is a huge blindspot of this philosophy with regards to public health. So much so, that when public health officials do their job, we can comfortably take them for granted. Wasn't it great when the CDC was simply a "waste of taxpayer money" ? In general we shouldn't blindly trust the government to take care of us. But we all implicitly did anyway, by not already having stockpiled all of these goods far ahead of time. As this has now become acutely apparent, everyone is looking to stock up for themselves aka hoard. We're about to see what happens to Freedom when this centralized response is not performed early enough to nip the problem in the bud. In a month, the national guard is likely to be patrolling to keep order, as the supply of hospital beds severely lags demand.

thymolu 7y ago
I'm of the libertarian persuasion too, but I'm really more of what I might refer to as a competitivist, that the government ideally increases competitive exchange of goods services and ideas. Sometimes this means more government services, sometimes less. Regulation is also different from service or resource provision. In a lot of ways, this crisis was worsened by overregulation. The FDA and CDC to some extent contributed to testing shortages by emphasizing centralized micromanaging of test protocol over test availability. It was entirely preventable. Many of the crunches we're seeing are due to rent seeking monopolies restricting provider pools and other red tape, that are entirety self inflicted. You're starting to see glimpses of this problem with things like lifting interstate licensing practice constraints, but it's the tip of the iceberg. US healthcare needs a lot more public support in the form of single payer, etc, but also needs a lot of deregulation. Libertarianism isn't anarchism either. Healthcare is one of those areas where I think public services makes a lot of sense.
- mindslight 7y ago
  It's true that the government was a net negative here. But in an alternative timeline with the same agencies, international travelers were examined, possibly quarantined, tested, and contact traced when it mattered. The red tape took just as long to get through, but started earlier, such that mass tests were available when community spread was a concern. And there wasn't an official narrative telling everyone to just ignore the problem. I hate to say it, but getting a government that is worse than nothing is the outcome of the "drown it in the bathtub" philosophy. It's a direct result of a lack of belief in institutions. I'm all for cutting government bloat, but it has to be targeted at middle management, corporate welfare and outright citizen-hostile programs (NSA, DEA, TSA, CIA, ATF) rather than kneecapping public services. Yet when politicians get elected on a promise of downsizing, they go after the soft targets rather than actually disrupting the status quo. As for healthcare itself, tomes have been written about that. I think regulating providers to have to charge uniform prices to all payers, at time of service, would go a long way. You don't go to the grocery store and pay at the checkout, only to receive a bill for the cashier's time three months later. Not that this would have solved our current shortage, but it certainly would have made people less scared to seek medical help for possible covid.
zo1 7y ago
I personally don't think that Libertarianism (and anarcho-capitalism by extension) have a blindspot when it comes to public health. Right now we're seeing huge efforts in the private sector to mitigate this disaster, that can not be discounted. As simple examples, private entities are giving out sanitizers, increasing hygiene and cleaning policies, putting up posters for awareness, coming up with contact-less procedures for public interaction, hiring people to fix online shopping demand, etc. When people are scared, they act. When a business's continuation is threatened, it will act. My private health-care provider and insurance provider have already extended (without government mandate, direction or legislation or extra-cost) my cover for any corona-related treatment/illness/death. In-case I lose my income due to this, they've also extended my unemployment to cover that so I won't be losing my income if it comes to that. And I can get a private test at my-cost (or healthcare provider will reimburse me) for less than $70. So that just leaves what...Mass coordination of "public" spaces? Again, tragically those spots are both everybody's and nobody's at the same time, essentially paralyzing them from doing anything too drastic without government approval. Not to mention the government is now stepping in and stopping some of these efforts because "human rights". They're planning on commandeering private hospitals and facilities to provide healthcare for free for those that don't pay and to deal with the fact that they were inadequately prepared for this crisis. They've also started with curfews, sent military police to private premises to "count" heads in case they go above some magical government number, prohibited public-dissemination of information by epidemiologists without government-approval.
- mindslight 7y ago
  > private entities are giving out sanitizers, increasing hygiene and cleaning policies, putting up posters for awareness, coming up with contact-less procedures for public interaction, hiring people to fix online shopping demand You're helping to prove my point. These are all reactive actions that simply attempt to mitigate the problem. I've personally upped my hygiene, policies, and mask / hand sanitizer use as well. This isn't going to actually solve the epidemic, but it will reduce my own exposure now that it's a major problem. Where was the private company temperature-checking international travelers in February, testing, and quarantining or contact tracing as necessary? Proactive prevention requires focus and coordination. A team that is paid to sit around looking for specific threats will take them seriously, while businesses (really all entities, including individuals and the non-specialized parts of government) only respond to the current conditions. Large companies could certainly employ similar risk teams, but don't seem to have done so for the current problem. > deal with the fact that they were inadequately prepared for this crisis The entire medical system, public and "private", is unprepared for the crisis. One could make the argument that if healthcare had been a freer market there would be much increased hospital capacity, but I don't see how this makes sense given businesses tendency to be reactive. Supplies like masks could have been easily stockpiled by companies and sold at a decent profit when needed, but weren't. > They've also started with curfews, sent military police to private premises to "count" heads in case they go above some magical government number, prohibited public-dissemination of information by epidemiologists without government-approval. You'll get no argument from me about these being injustices. But I think the real anti-freedom jackboots are going to come out when people start dying in significant numbers from hospital crowding. Which is kind of my entire larger point - when situations are allowed to get out of hand, restoring forces step in and none of them are conducive to lofty ideals of freedom.